Unhappy with Studio photos - thoughts needed

totally out of focus, and shot at f/13 to compensate for such eventuality.

You may say that D80 is outdated, but to be fair with a good lens (a 50/1.8G is pretty good and cheap start) and good technique it should print to almost perfect A3.

Which makes me raise a question if that was one of the KGB deals (the real KGB shoot a lot better, I promise :) )
 
Thanks for the comments.

We have used this company before and the results have been good, hence the repeat business.

I'm trying to keep the exact details of what we paid to myself, but lets just say that you'd need both hands to count the £hundreds that we parted with. Maybe it was foolish ( I certainly was unhappy with the money ) but the sisters wanted something for their parents and also of their own children and so we were sold every photo ( on the basis that individual photos were so expensive ) rather than a select few.

That said, the basics should still be that a photo should be in focus and most of these aren't. I'll be talking to the company today

Thanks again.
 
damianmkv said:
We were hoping to print them -
Click to expand...


A lot of studios will only give screen resolution images on disk, so you can't print from them. If you want prints, they probably want you to buy them from them. Personally, I wouldn't be giving high resolution files on disc either. Buying every image from the session, at high res, for £200 is a recipe for bankruptcy.

However.... That is the only thing I'm saying in favour of the studio....

having looked at the hi-res version you posted on Flickr... it's a bloody good job you never DID buy a big print, because that file is unprintable at anything above about 6x4 inches!!.. it would still look soft at that too.

Massively out of focus.

Not only that, it's just crap. Flat, almost copy lighting used... awful crop... This wasn't taken by a photographer.... this was taken by the kind of person Venture employ as a photographer. Lighting will be preset to be flat across the whole studio at f11 or in this case f13 so that no matter what happens with kids running around, there's a fair chance DOF will rescue any poor focusing.

Definitely not worth the money.. and what kind of studio is using a D80??

[edit]
The EXIF data is available on the Flickr link. The studio name is embedded in there as well.... and a visit to their website reveals equally shoddy work.


meonshore said:
Fact is this photographer appears to be of the skill level which many of us are lambasted for when we tell them to stop charging and get their basic skills under control first. The market, and this forum, can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for anyone else, but I definitely believe that people shouldn't be charging unless they can deliver a quality product... not unless they tell the client they are still training. If you're a trainee driving instructor you are legally obliged to tell the client, and while there's no legal obligation to tell them you're not an experienced photographer, I think there's a moral one.

Judging by the website, they probably operate the Venture model... you'll buy a voucher for a nominal value that covers the session... you go to a preview, and you'll be sold a range of frames for your chosen images. I can only imagine that if the OP decided he wanted that image in a large frame, it would be several hundred pounds.... for an out of focus, 8MP JPEG.... well, 8MP off camera... by teh time the awful crop has been applied, probably now 5MP. Morally... you happy with that? I'm not.
 
Last edited:
We were sold the disc on the basis that we would be able to take them to a shop and have them printed in at least 10x8 - I have the handwritten prices and shops of where to go so they clearly understood what we were going to do. The studio also talked about having them blown up to 24 x 18 so I was expecting large files.

Also, at the time my brother in law repeatedly asked about what file size the photos would be as clearly they would need to be reasonable to print. They were vague to the point of not directly answering - certainly, there was no mention of anything small, let alone some at 1.5mb.
 
damianmkv said:
We were sold the disc on the basis that we would be able to take them to a shop and have them printed in at least 10x8 -.
Click to expand...


In that case, it's clearly not fit for purpose, and you have them under the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

My advice is, go get a 10x8 made from the image on disc, take it to the studio, and confront them with the fact you were sold an image capable of AT LEAST 10x8 and politely remind them that under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 this image is not fit for the purpose which it was sold, and you are entitled to a refund by law.

Don't kick off in a temper... just be polite, factual, and insistent.

There is a risk however, that if the rest of the images on disk are perfectly fine... which they may well be as you've not said... how would they refund? The value of that one single image? If you have nothing in writing though, it could get messy if they insist that the disc is just fr screen use and not print.
 
Last edited:
I've now had the chance to look at all the photos - out of the 92, 50 are acceptable ( I'm not sure how they'd print ). Very few have spot on focus / are sharp
 
Then if you can prove the disc was supplied in order for you to print from, you've got them. AT teh end of the day, if that's what you wanted to do.. and you can't.. (shrug)
 
I have a handwritten piece of paper from them, saying which local printers / camera shops to go to for 8x6, 10x8, 18x6 and 20x8...
 
Last edited:
Meonshore makes a lot of valid points...

And in the right hands, a D80 produces cracking photography

At this point the OP simply needs to go back to the studio and explain how he feels. If the answer / resolution received is not satisfactory, then he may need some accurate professional advice

Discussions about what f-stop, what camera are irrelevant at the moment.
 
Agreed. I couldn't give 2 hoots about what camera, lens or f-stop was used if the photos were in focus and we could print them.

Time will tell...
 
The fact that only 50 out of 92 images are in focus isn't irrelevant though. He may make valid points about the pedantry of arguing what f-stop was used... but out of focus is out of focus, and if 50 out of 92 images can't be printed when the disc was supplied for that reason, then they are not fit for the purpose they were sold for.
 
Pookeyhead said:
The fact that only 50 out of 92 images are in focus isn't irrelevant though.
Click to expand...

Exactly, however how many did you pay for or was the contract not like that.

For example if they had given you just the 50 good ones would you have been happy, or were you expecting more than 50?

May be good to post one of the good ones just for comparison?
 
We paid an amount for the CD. The reason that we went for the CD was because we were told that the photos were £x each " or for £x, you could have all the photos which you then can print out to whatever size you want and however many times you want". 3x sisters with 2 kids each = lots of relatives and we thought it would be the best / cheapest option.

However, if ( as it looks ) that we have paid for something that we cannot print 45% of ( if any, we don't know ) then I need to discuss with the other family members and the studio what they want.

Below is one that I would consider acceptable - it's not tack sharp but it good enough ( ignoring the fact that its a typical studio pose )

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59954848@N07/8642519154/
chloe by damianmkv, on Flickr
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If they were all like that, then you'd have no grounds for complaint from a legal standpoint, as style and lighting could arguably be purely subjective. The fact is they're not; They've sold you 92 images, and only roughly half of them are printable and of acceptable quality.
 
So, I spoke to them and they were very apologetic. Their opening statement was that they had probably over compressed the files in editing, causing loss of sharpness - I said that almost half are OOF.

So, they will send out another disc with re-edited shots. Personally, I'd be surprised if this makes any difference but I have to be seen to be taking small steps, give them a chance of rectification first and see what happens.

This way, should they still be OOF, I'll have a stronger case
 
The D80 can produce much better quality that this even with the kit lens, I used to process a friends shots they were miles better than the ones I've seen here.
 
Apologies to the OP for the following rant.

WTF
No professional photographer is realistically delivering 90+ photo's from a family photo shoot.

The photographer is an idiot and the OP ought to have realised. It's not baked beans on a 2 for 1 offer, it takes time skill and effort to produce a good photograph.

If the photographer had only delivered the 30 best ones would the OP have considered it better VFM? He should have!

To all the wannabes out there, this is why we don't offer hundreds of delivered shots, just like I don't want the potato peelings in a restaurant, delivered photos need editing and finishing properly. Shoot and burn (all the files) is the lowest common denominator.
 
No worries - rant away :)

I'm not sure if I mentioned it but I didn't book it - my wife did and I'm sure she did it with best intentions.

That said, I understand what you say about quality not quantity
 
damianmkv said:
No worries - rant away :)

I'm not sure if I mentioned it but I didn't book it - my wife did and I'm sure she did it with best intentions.

That said, I understand what you say about quality not quantity
Click to expand...

If you look at the pro threads you'll see the recommended delivered images would be between a dozen and 30. At the end of the day, you only want to hang one or two on the wall.

The market is oversaturated with lots of people thinking they're smart by offering something 'unique'

But if unique means 50 OK pictures and 50 crap ones, rather than 20 great ones, what's the point of unique? It's certainly not what you want as a customer (otherwise we'd not have a thread).
 
I think we are all going on a bit too much here.

Forget about what camera he/she was using and what aperture it was taken at, just go back to the studio and say that compared to what you saw at the viewing, some of the shots look soft and could they re-process the images to a more satisfactory standard.

If they are soft again, then state that they are not of a merchantable quality and ask what they are going to do about it.

That's all you have to do.
 
Metal God said:
I think we are all going on a bit too much here.

Forget about what camera he/she was using and what aperture it was taken at, just go back to the studio and say that compared to what you saw at the viewing, some of the shots look soft and could they re-process the images to a more satisfactory standard.

If they are soft again, then state that they are not of a merchantable quality and ask what they are going to do about it.

That's all you have to do.
Click to expand...

The nature of a forum is to debate and discuss opinion and ideas otherwise there's little point. I guess its down to the OP to pick the bones out of what advice he finds useful and he seems to have done as you have suggested anyway.
 
Phil V said:
To all the wannabes out there, this is why we don't offer hundreds of delivered shots, just like I don't want the potato peelings in a restaurant, delivered photos need editing and finishing properly. Shoot and burn (all the files) is the lowest common denominator.
Click to expand...


Also... one hour session and 92 shots (I bet more was actually taken as well) = one shot every 39 seconds. That's not photography, that's machine gunning everything just happens and hoping for the best.
 
Definitely more were taken as there's quite a lot of poses that we haven't seen any photos of. This could mean they were ( even more ) terrible - or that they decided not to include them.

I believe that they were probably worse as presumably you give the customers your best work.....
 
Images removed as I assume the OP doesn't have the photographer's permission to reproduce online, certainly not for the purposes of this thread, anyway.

Pookeyhead said:
If they were all like that, then you'd have no grounds for complaint from a legal standpoint, as style and lighting could arguably be purely subjective. The fact is they're not; They've sold you 92 images, and only roughly half of them are printable and of acceptable quality.
Click to expand...

They're all printable, acceptable quality is also subjective. What is adequate for printing at 7X5 is potentially useless at A2. Was there any agreement in place for exactly what the OP's requirements for printing were? Just saying.
 
The copyright of the photos was signed over to me when I bought the disc, therefore I am free to do as I wish with them I believe ?

If I had just bought a print, the copyright would have remained under the studios ownership.
 
Last edited:
dod said:
Images removed as I assume the OP doesn't have the photographer's permission to reproduce online, certainly not for the purposes of this thread, anyway.
Click to expand...

That's the wrong excuse being used for removing them.
The OP has a every right to put up an image or two, to help them establish whether they're being overly fussy or justified in their concern - how else would you have the OP confirm their suspicions?

Now that it's been ascertained the images, like the one linked, are not what they expected for the money spent, they are no longer required to be shown.
That's a very different proposition (and clear distinction) to the assumption you've made.
 
Last edited:
Is that not the case then ? It's what they told us in the studio..
 
Ideally you'd like to have that in written form, but a verbal confirmation is as legally binding as a written one - just a bit harder to prove absolutely, if required.
Worry about it if or when they raise any objections, otherwise you've not done anything wrong by posting them up for the express purpose I've gone over in my reply above.
 
Last edited:
PJ S said:
Ideally you'd like to have that in written form, but a verbal confirmation is as legally binding as a written one - just a bit harder to prove absolutely, if required.
Worry about it if or when they raise any objections, otherwise you've not done anything wrong by posting them up for the express purpose I've gone over in my reply above.
Click to expand...

Oh yea of little knowledge.
 
I have no objection to the images being removed from here anyway, they have served their purpose as said..

Thanks for everyone's input by the way - it's been a great help.
 
Last edited:
admirable said:
Oh yea of little knowledge.
Click to expand...

Is this going to be a game of internet charades?
Sounds like?
2 syllables, first word THE

Fill in the missing blanks and enlighten us then.
 
Richard King said:
That old chestnut
Click to expand...
Why would it not be the case if that's what Damian was told in the studio?

I'm surprised anyone can defend the photographer, the pictures are terrible.
 
Last edited:
damianmkv said:
So, I spoke to them and they were very apologetic. Their opening statement was that they had probably over compressed the files in editing, causing loss of sharpness - I said that almost half are OOF.

So, they will send out another disc with re-edited shots. Personally, I'd be surprised if this makes any difference but I have to be seen to be taking small steps, give them a chance of rectification first and see what happens.

This way, should they still be OOF, I'll have a stronger case
Click to expand...

The reason We need to step back from this, as there is no definitive answer (without knowing all of the facts

i.e. The reason for a photograph "looking out of focus" or being "out of focus" could be very varied

- they are out of focus (lens not focused correctly)
- the apeture is so wide that the DOF is tiny
- the lens is not being used at it's optimum aperture
- the lens is low quality
- the aperture is so small that diffraction is playing a part. This rears its head more with sensors with very small photosites
- the images are reduced in size with a bad algorithm
- the images have been sharpened incorrectly
- The images have been enlarged (and possibly with a bad algorithm)
- The lighting caused lens flare/glare (no lens hood, poor light positioning, no flags)

Other reasons (web)
- The image has been re-sized in a browser
- The image has been compressed when saved
- the image has been altered by the webserver on saving
 
ZoneV said:
Why would it not be the case if that's what Damian was told in the studio?

I'm surprised anyone can defend the photographer, the pictures are terrible.
Click to expand...
I have specifically not defended the photographer, neither have I critisised him

The photographer can not defend himself
 
ZoneV said:
Ah, that old chestnut. ;)

The pictures weren't good though, were they?
Click to expand...

The chestnut in question was "I have the disk" ... "I thus have the copyright, so I can do what I want"

I am still not commenting on the photographs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top